4 ms·
This is my impression of Economist articles in general. They very rarely give you enough historical context (for me) to understand what they're talking about. I
by eatonphil 2y ago
This is my impression of Economist articles in general. They very rarely give you enough historical context (for me) to understand what they're talking about. It's why I ended my subscription with them.
- cbrpnk 2y agoAny alternatives?
- eatonphil 2y agoCouncil on Foreign Relations is pretty good. Also longer-form documentaries on YouTube from DW, Al Jazeera, CNA Insider, Bloomberg Originals.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoCouncil on Foreign Relations might have good content, but it is a special interest group. It is not equivalent to a news outlet, they are more like consultants. DW is pretty reliable, don't know about CNA/Bloomberg. Al Jazeera is very questionable to say the least. Worth it to read as you should also read biased news and validate content for yourself of course and on some topics their content is decent.
- Jensson 2y ago> They very rarely give you enough historical context (for me) to understand what they're talking about It gave the charts so you could make your own conclusion, so seems like the opposite of what you said for this article.
- collingreen 2y agoGiving charts is not the same as giving enough historical context to understand and I'm surprised you would make that claim.